Rolanbek

dabigkahuna said:

Good thing I'm not a hypocrite then.

Well that appears to show a staggering lack of self awareness. 

You do you, pal. I'll be drinking my tea. 

Tippy assam If it matters. Leaves not bags I'm not a barbarian.

Hi Smurf, Nancy. We are just waiting to see if Eric and TBD are going to wear themselves out shouting at the monkey. The organ grinder went missing shortly after someone mentioned Nextengine's very own Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.

R

Say something ridiculous, expect some level of ridicule is not the same as making a choice that was advised against being tantamount to a declaration of open season.

MotO can spend their money how they please. If you find them naive for doing so that is your opinion not an incontrovertible fact. I disagree with MotO on how to interpret four years of output and response regarding the Textblade and that's ok. I disagree with DBK on a great many things and that is also ok. 

Waytools might benefit from realising that the criticism they receive is not monolithic but comprised of many differing experiences and points of view. 

TBD this is your hill, address it how you please, but shouting @#$! at people is rarely persuasive. You never know, MotO may have evaluated all those negative experiences you list and still stuck the money down "because look, small keyboard". How many, for example, of those displaced from WTF are still holding orders out of sheer bloodymindedness? 

People are frustrated and frustrated people lash out. Sometimes frustration with one bleeds into our interactions with another. I know that MotO does not have a TextBlade to send me nor have I paid him any money for one. One must assume his views are his own, we can leave paranoid fantasies of bad faith actors to the company who took your money. If MotO has an experience with WT in the future then he may be in the next thread sharing that experience. Who can tell what that may be like?

As you were, my popcorn is ready.

R

But you made it an issue with this:

"REEEEEEEE"  Argument by Assertion. This is the constant restatement of an assertion he has made, independent of evidence to support that claim. It is one of the mainstays of his arsenal, and when coupled with his habit of retreating to new threads whenever he loses a point, or becomes aware that the weight of counterargument has refuted his position, it means that you have continually restate you refutation. Copy and paste is your friend.

"Shame, shame, shame" - No one argued that the space was not public or that they could not, should not or must not respond. 

You even labeled it as a "compulsion".

Yup, as it's a noun describing the act 

an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way.

 Not what someone does if just asking a legitimate question.

"phew, stinky" Legitimacy of the question was not contended. 
"Brrap"- Mindreading. This is being used to cover every occasion where [redacted] asserts your motives and then argue contrary to them. Also know as a form of appeal to motive, every single time he bases a point on another mental processes, or claims knowledge of what you are thinking as fact, just make the noise to remind him of his argument form assumption. This is especially insidious as the much of his argument rely on him characterising his opponent (using Ad hominem attacks, and appeals to motive) as a bad actor rather than arguing his points.

Yep, I responded to your post, which wasn't directed to me.

I don't care. I was illustrating that you couldn't even form that fallacy without committing it yourself. It shows your delicious hypocrisy.

But, you see, I'm not the guy questioning someone's "compulsion" to do so.

Stating the obvious there really. Asker of question: Me. Person who interrupted to say "you interrupted too" performing a tu quoque: you. 

I have absolutely no objection to others responding

I don't care. Also "phew, stinky" your feelings on the matter were not argued. 

I just question why you do something you just made an issue about someone else doing!

"REEEEEEEE"  Argument by Assertion.

Note argument has now subtly changed as he has lost ground, so his strawman has shifted to me having an issue with the unsolicited response. 

"Shame, shame, shame" -No one argued that the space was not public or that they could not, should not or must not respond. 

because: 

"Waah, waah waaahhh" Argument By Emotive Language. For [redacted] nothing is ever a question or a comment, it is an attack. There are no counterarguments only 'games' or 'Tactics'. No banned users only 'critics'. People who do not share his point of view are 'opponents' and those if people happen to agree they must be 'conspiring'. Someone who asks a question must have an 'issue.' The use of emotive terms is a fallacious piece of argument as it seeks to argue based on feeling rather than facts.

So, you didn't question why he did it?

Yes that was question.I have not argued to contrary postilion,  or more specifically the post text in full:

Why, what is it to you? Why would it at all matter what people whose opinion you have written off think?
Why the compulsion to post in response to a post not directed at you? 
And not for the first time...

From which you fabricated: 

A

Because they are public posts might be a reason anyone in the public may respond.

B

But you made it an issue with this:

Which are not arguments relating to a position I hold but to the "Shame, shame, shame" strawmen you invented above

Or you didn't call it a "compulsion"?

Yup, synonyms for which are "urge, impulse, need, necessity, desire, longing, motivation, drive" I think you will find that I haven't denied using the word that means the thing I meant to mean, in the sentence that can be read in the thread that we are discussing it in, so:"Shame, shame, shame" strawman.

"Yawn" Argumentum ad Nauseum. Literally arguing to the point of nausea. This is also a [redacted] trope. He can spend weeks arguing a small point without actually coming near to showing proof. This is done in an attempt to 'win' and argument by going on and on until his opponents give up.

R

This has been brought up many times, but really, it doesn't tell us much.

Well it says "we did see pallets of finished TextBlades". How did the author determine those were finished? Did they inspect the contents of a random sample of units and determine they were ready and complete for general release? Did they use the mighty powers of surmise and simply assume shipping boxes neatly stacked was the same as finished product ready to go? Or did they just ask someone what was on the pallet and publish the response? These are of course not the only possibilities, but incontrovertibly the words "pallets", "Textblades," and "finished" appear in a sentence that seems to indicate that the Textblades on those pallets are complete.

We know WT has a lot of TB ready to go for new Treg or replacements for old Treg users.

"phew, stinky" the status of prototype units for test release in not in contention. You may or may not know how many prototypes are ready to go, I would guess that it was roughly equal to the amount of Textblades sitting on pallets readers have been informed are finished. 

This could refer to those.

(Speculation, but lets indulge.) In which case the lie is put to the statement immediately, TREG units are not finished, they contain firmware which has been rejected by WT for General release. 

 Or to new ones since it isn't clear.

(Speculation, but lets indulge.) In which case they would be either carrying old firmware (rejected) the most recent firmware (which is feature incomplete compared even to the rejected firmware, as per WT WTF announcement) or missing firmware altogether ( not fit for purpose). So the any putative 'new ones' would also be unfinished. 

 Also, even "pallets" doesn't tell us much. Because while WT has posted that there are something like 300 in a box, we don't know how many boxes on each pallet or how many pallets there are.

"phew, stinky" the precise number of finished units is irrelevant. 

So what it tells us is the words in the article are contradicted by WT's own announcements regarding their product. 

As for the rest in brief

1. These are things we have already been told, or are public record. 

2. Author is hedging. I can see why, and do not see a problem here. 

3, I assume people who can read 370 comments down a thread can read an article that is considerably shorter. 

5. Opinion, I do not see a problem here. 

6. Compares a specific feature to a generalism. Uninteresting to me, but it may inform others. 

7. I was told I would have my keyboard in my hands in March 2015. So YMMV on what we are 'told'.

8. Would mean more if we had an idea how many switching keyboards that was, and if the claim that it was faster rather than felt faster. So opinion? I do not see a problem here. 

9. Being bad at implementing BT is also an explanation. 

10. Ok. then. 

R

1. Because they are public posts might be a reason anyone in the public may respond.

Yadda, yadda,public space may respond. No one argued that the space was not public or that they could not, should not or must not respond. I will crack open a drink for the inaugural AI strawman outing. The first of many I fear. In any case this response does not answer why question why they did. You may staple your left leg to a fast moving truck, by why someone might is far more interesting.

2. If this is an issue for you, why are you posting a response to a post not directed at you? In fact, you posted two responses!

And you have just done so also. This is a tu quoque fallacy on behalf of another which is new but I know you are familiar with this definition:

This is another non argument argument he uses regularly. It takes the form of a claim that what he does does not matter as you (or another in the same argument chain) 'do it too'. Whether you do it or not does not invalidate your point that he did it. This is an argument of exceptional bad faith as you may feel the need you refute the assertion that you do it too. Generally he offers no evidence for his claim or is so general (using Appeal to the Masses, or Appeal common sense) that there is not specific case to answer. A simple 'Nope' is sufficient rebuttal in most cases.

 the shorthand we used to use was "Nyan-Na" when you did it. No o creator of vast fields of strawmen, your made up issue is not one I feel care enough about to argue.

The strawman. The attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. This is a mainstay of [redacted]'s output. Rarely does he approach any argument without first securing a strawma

I believe for those who remember this was a "Shame, shame, shame". 

Now, I don't care if you respond to his post or not, 

Methinks he doth protest too much...(That's an opinion, i'm allowed those.) also "Honk" claim based on future event:

Making claims based on future events (*'you never','you won't','I predict','you will','you always') He uses this technique in two main ways. the first is to make a sweeping and impressive sounding claim. However because he would have needed to discover time travel to present such a claim as truth, such a claim must be based on assumption. Secondly he will use it as a form of 'well poisoning', which is to say he will preempt a future position you may take up and argue that such a position is based on a scheme, tactic or plan of yours hoping that by associating your future position with his assumptions you will either avoid a position that undermines his points, or at the very least can claim you are following a game plan. This form of arguing is fallacious as he uses knowledge of the flaws in his own argument to predicate and support his 'hypothesis contrary to fact.'

but if you are going to push some kind of standard people should follow,

 not just a "honk" but an additional lazy strawman so "Shame, shame, shame".  nope. not pushing a standard, you just made that one up. 

 you might try following your own "standard".

Annnd you quote another poster..."Phew, stinky" a red herring.

The red herring. [redacted] will use irrelevant arguments to divert you attention away from the argument at hand. Often he will couple this with a Tu quoque (see above) attack or a Strawman (see above).

Quoted definitions are from a different time and place. Same DBK though.

I have left you alone, for the most part, but if you want to play, lets play. We know how this always ends...

R